I don't think even the puritans felt that "sex for children" was a bad thing. Puritans had tons of children also! (all the pictures of puritan families on the net have atleast 4 kids in the picture)

Actually, I think you will find that traditions that feel that "sex is bad" in general, are the families with the most children.

Also, you can find the "sex is bad" mentality much much earlier than the 1600s.

just a quick mental exercise: Who traditionally has more children, prostitutes, or religious christians? (pre birth control days)

Ok, maybe you're right, but it's almost definitely not a farmer thing.

Even talking about STDs vividly doesn't work. You have two kids with raging hormones. They aren't thinking "gee I hope I don't get an STD tonight". Being able to openly talk about sex with someone (other than your partner) is important. Especially the relationship part of it. Girls should carry condoms with them, because when they are needed, guys usually aren't good about using them. I think sex education is useless if you can't deal with all aspects of the situation. This is new territory these kids are walking out on. It's really easy for a young couple to let their emotions get to them, and this can lead to manipulation on both sides.

When all is said and done, all the teaching in the world (by itself) can't make someone make smart choices. The educational system needs a complete revamp. High school students need to learn how to be independent instead of being carted from class to class, like prisoners. That, however is a subject that would take more than a single post to discuss.

Double post, because I didn't see these posts before I posted.



Even without birth control the award goes to any religious sect. In some ways being a prostitute wasn't so bad in the old days. They got a better education then other women of their time. Condoms in one form or another have been around since about the 13th century. I would think that men would be more careful with prostitutes, because it would be odd having a child running around with your face on it.




Maybe not all farmers, but those who need free help use to, (and in some cutures still do) have kids to help out on the farm. Also they had bunches because kids use to die really easily.

You know what's awesome? That people can be resistant to some strains of herpes.

The same can be said of any viral infection.

Yeah, they are called the "host." :p

Hey, I wallow in my new found knowledge that I am resistant to the two most common types, no need to rain on my parade.

I'm glad we have stayed on subject. Partially my fault too. I love starting things and throwing people off their original conversations. Also like making Fania start things on the city channels that other people get in trouble for. Wait...I didn't say that.

Umm, different strain of conversation here. (pun off of herpes conv)

the little bit you quoted here was about the argument that "lots of kids" == "sex isn't a bad thing" (sorry the double negative was necessary)

I wasn't saying its a farmer thing, I was saying its a work ethic thing. (most workers were farmers back in middle ages where I know the "sex is bad" definitely existed. (might have started before then too) I would honestly not be surprised if the attitude came as a response to the nobility. (few kids relatively and lots of sexual activity) Because I think you find the "sex is bad" attitude in cultures where the "priest class" (or monks or whatever) was a means to bypass the social hierarchy and for the "everyday man" to get "ahead" if they weren't nobility. And also had a strong work ethic.

In the case of Herpes Simplex II, I doubt you are resistant. Rather, I imagine you are just a potential carrier who is asymptomatic. There is a huge difference between the two. This is very important to know because a carrier can still infect other people.


EDIT:

For some fun reading:

Smith J and Robinson J. (2002) ’Age-specific prevalence of infection with herpes simplex virus types 2 and 1: a global review’, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2002; 186 (Suppl 1):S3-28 suggests that 1 in 5 Americans is a carrier. It's fairly common.

Man, I can't wait to study medicine, too. :/

But yeah, well, I don't get blisters, which is good in my book, heh. <.<

I think I remember reading in some journal that it was a ridiculously high number of those infected (above 50% easily) do not know they have it, as in, no symptoms...however they can still spread it. Best way to find out is just to get tested obviously. The lame bit is that a condom or such really does not do anything to protect against it. Since it does not spread through the fluids, but rather, contact. It infects nerve cells. So you can get it just from bare skin contact. Obviously the existence of blisters increases the chances of infection since they are filled with the virus particles. Not to scare you are anything. : /

However, this thread certainly went off on a tangent.

Yeah...can an Admin close this please?

Why? You don't close threads simply because they went off on a tangent. It's still a helpful, thoughtful discussion that's not hostile in anyway.

You're not the thread starter!

Plus, why? It's just a discussion.

Because of a misplaced desire for legitimacy and authority?

RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAH!